Risk Factors Affecting Public Infrastructure Projects

Abstract

The delivery of public infrastructure projects in South Africa is bedevilled with many challenges leading to project delays and loss of needed public resources. This study, therefore, sought to identify the risk factors affecting project delivery and the sources of these risk factors. This study employs a qualitative research methodology. To gather the required data, open-ended interview questions were administered to the participants from the various provincial departments in the Northern Cape responsible for delivering public infrastructure construction projects. A purposive sampling technique was used to select the relevant participants to form part of the study. The data collected were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The underpinning factors for these risks affecting project execution are classified as internally and externally generated. The identified risk factors pose a significant threat to project delivery leading to delay and loss of public funds and adequate service delivery to the public. This study helps us understand the risk factors and their source for public infrastructure construction projects. The government and departments in the Northern Cape and other provinces can take measures to tackle these risk factors and alleviate their negative impact on project delivery.

1. Introduction

The public sector is the most prominent player, investor, and contributor regarding infrastructure development. The Northern Cape Provincial Government is responsible for developing and initiating public infrastructure projects to improve communities’ livelihood conditions. Risks are not immune to infrastructure projects within the Northern Cape. Project Management Institute defines project risk as an uncertain situation that might constitute a threat or an opportunity for achieving the project objectives [1]. Like any other, a construction project has defined goals and lists of activities to be completed within a predetermined beginning and finish [2]. Public infrastructure projects are expected to positively contribute to the development of communities and the local economy and are faced with many negative factors, including uncertainties and risks. Some of those infrastructure projects are the construction of hospitals, roads, schools, and offices. According to the National Treasury Provincial Budgets and Expenditure Review ([3], p. 17), “Provincial Government Departments within the Northern Cape Province are mandated to deliver these infrastructure projects and related services to their sectors. Implementing agents, who usually work for provincial agencies, assist these departments; for example, the Department of Roads and Public Works is critical in planning, organising, monitoring, and supervising infrastructure projects. Infrastructure Projects directly affect the quality of life and the inclusive well-being of communities”. Risk management is crucial in identifying and responding to such infrastructure projects’ potential risks [3].

Siswana [4] states, “On 30th September 2019, Northern Cape Premier Dr Zamani Saul opened the long-awaited facility that started construction in 2006. Part of the facilities taking too long was because of unexpected and repeated delays.” In his opening address, the Premier of the Northern Cape Province said, “What worries me is the fact that the implementation of this mental hospital, of this massive infrastructure project, reflects some major weaknesses in our capacity to implement infrastructure projects on time and budget.” Infrastructure development plays a significant role in the growth of any economy. The Northern Cape Province is the largest province with a mass land, but small in the economic activity of South Africa. Over the last three years, the Northern Cape’s total Provincial Infrastructure budget has decreased from R 3079 billion (Three billion and seventy-nine million rands) in 2017/18 to R 2846 billion (Two billion, eight hundred and forty-six million rands) in 2018/19. There has been a decrease in the allocation of incentives by sectors because of poor infrastructure planning and performance [5].

The causes of poor planning of infrastructure could negatively impact the performance and success of infrastructure construction within the Northern Cape, which may pose a risk. Many studies on project risk have focused on the risk management process and implementation. However, they have not yet delved into the main contributory factors to project risk leading to project failures in public infrastructure delivery. Again, most of these studies need to be more generic and focus on the provincial level to ascertain their unique risk factors and sources causing project failures [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. South Africa’s government spends money on public infrastructure projects to address the needs of the public. Albeit infrastructure projects within the public sector are confronted by risks that occur throughout the life cycle, the inefficient identification of risks and their sources throughout the project’s life cycle would result in projects performing poorly and may lead to possible failures. Assessing risks throughout a project’s life cycle can be an excellent method to make it more resilient and, as a result, more profitable for all stakeholders. This study explores the risks and causes of risks throughout the construction life cycle of infrastructure projects in the Northern Cape Province. Risks must be identified before they are controlled, managed, and mitigated. Identifying project risk aids in understanding the potential implications of risks and how to avoid them. Given the impact of risk management on a project’s quality and cost, risk management goals should be an open activity throughout the project’s life cycle. The subsequent sections will discuss the related literature, the methodology used to collect the relevant data, findings and the discussions and conclusion and recommendations.

2. Literature review

2.1 Project risk factors

Past studies have identified construction project risk factors; for instance, according to Al-Hazim et al. [11], cost/budget overruns are prevalent risk factors in building projects worldwide. Likewise, inconsistencies, incorrect amounts, and difficulties accessing the site were considered high-risk factors. Project risk factors include cost, scheduling, and performance [12]. Risk factors in projects must be identified and evaluated to avoid performance problems. Rezakhani [13] divided the external risk variables into unexpected and predictable uncontrolled categories. According to Abd El-Karim [14], cash flow issues, equipment shortages, late deliveries of goods, a lack of materials, and poor craftsmanship are the most significant risk-contributing variables. It is vital to note that these critical aspects may be divided into building and financing. According to Abd El-Karim [14], key risk variables should be adequately controlled to minimise the risks of failure during building projects to achieve project success. As a result, risk considerations must be evaluated to avoid causing damage resulting from decision-making errors [9]. According to Kuang [9], construction projects contain a variety of characteristics, such as unique objectives, time limits, financial needs, specific organisational and legal contractual requirements, complexity, and systematic elements. Any investment project is complex, but construction projects are considerably more due to the numerous risk factors and intricate relationships affecting the project. Therefore, incorporating risk management into building project timelines should be a crucial step [9]. The primary goals of construction project management are quality, time, cost, health and safety, and environmental sustainability. A building project’s time target and cost objective are intimately and inextricably linked. South African construction is fraught with dangers. Chihuri and Pretorius [15] list some of the significant hazards connected to construction projects in South Africa: the absence of power (electricity crisis), a lack of skilled labour, and rising costs for building supplies. Similar to this, forty-four (44) risk factors for building construction were found by Kishan [8] and split into ten (10) categories, including physical, logistical, design, environmental, legal, financial, managerial, cultural, construction, and political. According to the concerns examined, design changes, poor communication, and delayed contract payments are the primary causes of project delays.

Lack of efficient planning, execution constraints, external constraints, client-induced constraints, project constraints, partner experience and a lack of project management knowledge, organisational culture and a claims redressal mechanism has been identified as major risk factors for construction projects [16]. Asumadu et al. [17] note that construction projects in wetland experience critical risk factors, including cost overruns, destruction of biological resources, water pollution, destruction of aquatic lives, lack of flood control capability and deterioration of water quality. Thus, governments should enforce effective enactment and enforcing environmental protection laws globally. Likewise, Jahan et al.’s [18] study find the rising cost of building materials, supply chain process, payment issues, planning and scheduling problems, financial difficulties, and ineffective control of manpower and equipment resources as the most critical factors affecting construction. In modelling critical risk factors in integrated construction projects, Ibrahim et al. [19] mentioned stakeholder and supply chain risks, design and capabilities risks, financing risks, and regulatory risks. In Jordan, Hiyassat et al. [20] identified the top risk factors in construction projects as client’s payments delays, poorly contract forms, competition, delays in approval of permits, default by subcontractors, unclear specifications, material prices fluctuations, different construction standards, change in design, and poor design.

2.2 Public infrastructure delivery challenges in South Africa

According to academics, several difficulties stem from inadequate infrastructure development and delivery caused by various causes. Experts say South Africa’s infrastructure project delivery system needs several problems. Olatunji et al. [21] state that some difficulties may arise due to wrong infrastructure delivery, including cost overruns, project delays, poor quality, inefficient fund management, and poor social benefits in service delivery. Inadequate human resources procedures, insufficient procurement methods, and a lack of leadership impede service delivery [22]. To provide public services, the government relies on various state departments [23]. According to Koops [24], effective project delivery might include additional dependent elements, such as observable performance, to meet customer expectations. According to the World Bank [25], increasing public sector performance necessitates eliminating infrastructural gaps. A rise in domestic and foreign direct investment (FDI), as well as private sector engagement via the adoption of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in public infrastructure delivery, appears to be a critical effort made by the governments [26]. According to Kudumela [27], a deficit in skills capability at the local level, lack of finance, political instability, and corruption are among the key reasons that cause problems for infrastructure delivery in underdeveloped nations. There were several obstacles to public infrastructure project delivery in South Africa. While these problems and variables apply to all types of infrastructure, public construction infrastructure needs to be immune to these issues. The Presidency [28] lists the following as enablers where communities may profit from better infrastructure project performance and where problems can be resolved via action. They listed project challenges as follows;

• Poor institutional planning;

• Slow project approval;

• Late project start;

• Poor execution quality;

• High costs and monopolistic pricing;

• Slow industry response time;

• Inadequate project controls (time, cost, quality, safety, health, and the environment);

• Tender abuse and corruption; unrealistic acceleration; unplanned and expensive design or construction redo;

• There is no political alliance and no champion;

• Allowing for rework or delays in environmental impact assessments (EIAs); and

• Delays in lead time; and slow or non-payment of contractors.

To overcome these challenges to ensure communities benefits from projects, they proposed many actions to improve the performance of infrastructure, including:

• Program to coordinate state-wide development of project-related, project management, and engineering skills;

• Align the federal, provincial, and municipal frameworks; − Align the investment strategy with the distribution of resources;

• Strong policy direction for encouraging supplier growth, localisation, and private sector engagement; Long-term support for long-term initiatives, particularly regional projects; Predictable procedure for initiating national projects, including regulatory clearances;

• Create projects with minimal life-cycle costs in mind;

• Standardised designs and delivery; recovery of full life cycle costs via user tariff or committed financing plan;

• Improving project oversight and controls in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the government;

• Standardised and straightforward automated reporting to monitor project performance;

• Early notification of bottlenecks; and

• A new agreement with the private sector [28].

The Infrastructure Development Bill passed Act No. 23 of 2014 on June 2, 2014, aiming to increase the government’s ability to deploy infrastructure. Infrastructure development is one of the essential strategies for resolving the legacies of privilege and underdevelopment that are a part of our terrible history [29].

3. Research methodology

3.1 Description of the study area: Northern Cape Province

The Northern Cape is approximately a third of South Africa’s land area and is South Africa’s biggest province. It is the least populated province in South Africa, with an area of 372889 km² and a population of 1,193,780.00. It is bounded by Namibia, Botswana, Northwest, Free State, Eastern Cape, and Western Cape provinces. The Atlantic Ocean forms the province’s western border. Kimberley is the capital city of the province. The province also has significant towns such as Upington, the centre of the karakul sheep and dried-fruit industries; Springbok, in the heart of Namaqualand spring-flower; and Kuruman and De Aar, the second most significant railway junction in South Africa. Again, Sutherland is home to the Southern African Large Telescope, the southern hemisphere’s largest astronomical observatory. The Northern Cape is mineral-rich, and in Alexander Bay and Port Nolloth, alluvial diamonds can be collected from the beaches and sea.

The Sishen Mine in Kathu is South Africa’s largest source of iron ore, while the copper mine at Okiep is one of the country’s oldest. Springbok and Aggeneys also have copper mines. Asbestos, manganese, fluorspar, semi-precious stones, and marble are abundant in the province. The province is divided into 5 district municipalities: Frances Baard, John Taolo Gaetsewe, Namakwa, Pixley Ka Seme and ZF Mgcawu, further split into 26 local municipalities, as stated in Figure 1. The province was selected for this study because the province is currently experiencing infrastructure development to cope with the increasing population and economic development. Thus, identifying risk factors for infrastructure development will assist the authorities in reducing project failures and saving public resources.

Figure 1.

Five District Municipalities of Northern Cape Province. Source: https://municipalities.co.za/provinces/view/7/northern-cape.

3.2 Research approach

A qualitative research technique was used for this study. The qualitative research technique is appropriate since this study examines in-house peculiar risk factors from the participants with experiences and involvement in implementing and managing public infrastructure construction projects. The qualitative research approach uses interviews via open-ended interview questions or guides in collecting data from the participants. Thus, participants can freely express themselves based on their experiences of the phenomena under investigation [30]. According to Creswell [30], qualitative research techniques employ an approach to investigate and comprehend the meaning that people or groups assign to social or human problems. Unlike a quantitative approach that forces participants to select from predetermined variables or responses, a qualitative research strategy may place the researcher in the world of study participants, exposing them to the richness and depth of the participants’ impressions of their experiences [31]. Thus, using a qualitative research strategy allows the researcher to examine the participant’s experiences regarding the risk factors confronting their projects [32].

3.3 Target population

O’Leary [33] defines population as the total unit of a particular class or group from which a sample is drawn. Bryman [34] describes a population as a collection of people or items considered for a research study. The study was conducted in the Northern Cape; however, participants were selected from various provincial government departments responsible for delivering public infrastructure projects. 28 participants from eight Departments (see Table 1) within the Northern Cape Provincial Government and responsible for the execution of public infrastructure projects in their respective departments were interviewed. They perform roles such as project managers, quantity surveyors, architects, planners, engineers, middle and senior management, and project stakeholders.

Departments and institutions interviewed in the Northern Cape	Number of participants
Department of Roads and Public Works	10
Department of Education	5
Department of Health	5
Provincial Treasury	3
Department of Transport, Safety and Liaison	2
Department of Cooperative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs	1
Department of Social Development	1
Department of Sports, Arts and Culture	1
Total	28

Table 1.

Participants’ place of work.

3.4 Sampling method

The participants for this study were chosen using the purposive sampling technique. The researcher first identified the relevant population, which comprises the entire number of elements, to extract a sample [35]. In this case, individuals from the Northern Cape provincial government departments are responsible for delivering public infrastructure projects. A reasonable population sample had to be drawn after identifying the target demographic. Purposeful sampling is a technique that is frequently employed in qualitative research [36]. Purposive sampling allows researchers to find and choose people or groups with exceptional expertise or experience in the phenomenon under investigation [37]. The research focuses on the infrastructure construction projects within the Northern Cape Provincial Government. Thus, project implementers and managers from various departments in the case study province were purposively selected for the interview. According to O’Leary [28], sampling is the “process of selecting elements of a population to participate in the study.” The researcher invited 32 participants for an interview, of which 28 participated. According to Leedy and Ormrod [38], a qualitative study among a homogeneous population using interviews requires a sample size of 5–25. In Camngca et al.’s [39] study, 8 participants were used, and a saturation point was realised at the 7th interviewee. Again, Smith and Amoah [40] used 16 participants for their qualitative study and reached a saturation point at the 12th interviewee. A saturation point for this study was realised at the 22nd participant; thus, 28 interviewees used for the analysis are justified. According to Mayring [41], what is essential is when saturation is reached during a qualitative interview.

3.5 Data collection methods

The research study made use of a semi-structured interview guide. The researcher conducted semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interviews were meant to get the participants’ verbal, reliable, and valid information. Letters were sent to the Heads of Department offices for the various departments to get permission and set up interview appointments. The researcher visited the targeted individual’s offices to conduct the interviews at an agreed convenient time. The participants were contacted telephonically to confirm their availability before the researcher visited their offices. The researcher took notes during interviews and used a tape recorder. An interview is a data collection exercise whereby the researcher asks questions and records verbal answers from the participant [42]. Where there were ambiguities and discrepancies in the participant’s responses, the researcher sought clarifications to ensure consistency in the interviewees’ responses to the questions asked. This also enriched the data and information provided by the interviewees. The interview took about 30–45 minutes per participant. The saturation point (where no new information emerged) was reached at the 22nd participant. The working departments of the participants interviewed are indicated in Table 1. In the discussion, the participants were asked to indicate their demographic data, including their position and experience in the organisation. The participants were then asked to express their views on the risk factors that usually confront them in the project execution process, whether risk management is included in the project plan, stakeholders involved in risk assessment and risk management practices in the organisation, among others. However, this study focuses on the risk factors confronting them in the project execution.

3.6 Data analysis methods

Data analysis dissects the gathered information into components to address the research questions or achieve the research goals [43]. Data editing and coding were done by repeatedly listening to the recorded participants’ responses and notes taken during the interviews. The gathered data was examined using the content analysis method. This method allows the researcher to review transcriptions of recorded data carefully. Data gathered through the interviews were analysed using Polit and Beck’s [44] qualitative contents analysis processes, as indicated in Figure 2. The demographic features of the participants are indicated in Table 2.

1. Step 1: The researcher repeatedly listened to each recorded interview to understand the interviewees’ statements. This was done by downloading the recorded interviews into the computer. The researcher then played the interview loudly and listened attentively to have a general overview of what the participants stated.

2. Step 2: The researcher transcribed the summary of each interview in a notebook and typed it into a Word document. This also assisted the researcher in further reading the participants’ narrations to understand and make the statement meaningful.

3. Step 3: The researcher carefully analysed each transcribed data to identify any differences in the responses. This was done by carefully reading and comparing the participant responses to questions asked and notes made during the interview.

4. Step 4: Where differences were identified, the researcher replayed the recordings for further clarification and referred to the notes made during the interview to assist in reconciling responses.

5. Step 5: The researcher identified common meanings from the participants’ responses and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. This was done by using keywords or themes to define participants’ responses.

6. Step 6: The researcher identified similar meanings from the themes identified in each interview. This was done by comparing various themes stated by each participant to see where similarities exist.

7. Step 7: The researcher finally merged similar themes. This was then by grouping similar themes into one to reduce the volume of themes listed. Then sub-themes were identified and grouped under the main themes.

Figure 2.

Qualitative contents analysis. Source: Polit and Beck ([44], p. 542).

Demographics		Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	18	64%
	Female	10	36%
	Total	28	100%
Position	Project Manager	5	18%
	Director	4	14%
	Deputy Director	5	18%
	Engineer	6	20%
	Architect	3	11%
	Quantity Surveyor	1	4%
	Planner	3	11%
	Control Works Inspector	1	4%
	Total	28	100%
Experience	0–5 years	6	21%
	6–10 years	8	29%
	11–15 years	4	14%
	Over 15 years	10	36%
	Total	28	100%

Table 2.

Participants’ demographic data.

Among the 28 participants in the study’s total sample, 64% identified as male and 36% as female. Again, the position compositions of participants indicate that the majority (20%) are engineers in the departments involved in the government project execution, whilst 18% are project managers and deputy directors, respectively. Also, participants’ years of experience executing public infrastructure construction projects indicate that 50% have over 10 years, while 29% have 6–10 years. This shows that participants have experiences and knowledge of the risk factors causing failure in government infrastructure projects.

4. Participants’ views on the risk factors that confront project execution

The rationale behind this question was to establish if public infrastructure construction projects are confronted with risk factors. Table 3 shows that the risk factors that usually confront projects are poor contract management, which 24 participants mentioned, representing 86%, 18 representing 64% of the participants, identified poor contractor performance as a critical risk factor confronting their projects. Again 12 participants, representing 43%, mentioned community disruptions as a significant project risk in the province.

Question	Response	Frequency	Percentage
What are the risk factors that usually confront your projects?	Poor contract management	24	86%
	Poor performance of contractors	18	64%
	Community disruptions	12	43%
	Political Interference	11	39%
	Lack of technical skills	9	32%
	Payment delays	8	29%
	Unforeseen events	8	29%
	Material availability	7	25%
	Corruption	5	18%
	Total Participants	28	100%

Table 3.

The risk factors that usually confront projects.

Other project risk factors cited by the participants are political interference (cited by 39%), lack of technical skills (cited by 32%), payment delays and unforeseen events, mentioned by 29% of the participants, respectively. Likewise, 25% and 18% mentioned material availability and corruption as risk factors, respectively. It can be deduced that participants are updated with risk issues affecting their project by looking at the similar issues that different participants cited.

5. Discussions of the findings

5.1 Risk factors affecting public infrastructure projects

The study’s first objective was identifying the risk factors affecting public infrastructure projects. The risk factors identified by participants are listed in Table 3, with the prominent ones cited by most participants s being poor contractor performance, poor contract management and Community disruptions. The risk factors usually negatively impact a project’s performance and success. Abd El-Karim [14] points out that the risk factors usually confront projects are cash flow issues, equipment shortages, late deliveries of goods, a lack of materials and poor craftsmanship contributing factors. Likewise, Kishan [8] found forty-four (44) risk factors for construction projects and were categorised into ten: managerial, cultural, construction, financial, political, logistical, design, environmental, legal and physical. This indicates that project risk factors faced by project implementers are similar. This is because participants in these stated issues, such as political interference and cashflow challenges of the municipalities executing the project, led to the delay in payment of the invoices submitted by contractors and consultants, which Kishan’s findings support. Likewise, contractors have been found to mismanage the payment received from the client, leading to their inability to procure the required skilled personnel and execution of shoddy work. Heagney [45] stated that the causes for risk factors are appointed contractors graded by Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) but do not have the skills, capacity, or technical know-how to execute the project effectively. Most of these issues emanate from political interference by people in higher authority and corrupt practices by the official during the contractor procurement process. As elaborated by P6, P9 and P12.

1. P9: “Competency of Contractors. Cashflow of the contractor. Unforeseen factors on site - soil conditions, the community and business forms.”

2. P12: “The biggest concern we have is that contractors are not performing well and this impacts negatively on the projects we have.”

3. P6: “Contractors that are usually appointed intend to have a high grade level as per CIDB, but they are unable deliver the quality of work as required by their grading level.”

It has been identified by Koops [24] that effective project delivery might also include additional dependent elements, such as observable performance, to meet customer expectations. This point could be linked to what participants mentioned about contractors’ poor performance, as mentioned by P12. The issue of poor contract management on the part of the project managers was also a significant issue raised by many participants. For instance, P15 and P28 suggested that, more often, it becomes challenging to understand the type of contract used to manage the project, thus hampering their ability to manage the terms and conditions of the contract properly. Likewise, most project consultants need help understanding the contract used to manage the project, hampering the ability to enforce it when the contractors flout its rules. P28, on the other hand, stated that project consultants often start projects with preliminary designs leading to scoop creep at the later stage of the projects. Oke et al. [21] mentioned some causes of bad infrastructure delivery, such as cost overruns, project delays, poor quality, poor money management and poor social benefits in service delivery. Heagney [45] believes project planning should incorporate risk assessments within predetermined project objectives. The views of P3, P15 and P28 are stated as follows:

1. P15: “The management of contracts, we do not even know what are the type contracts that are utilised for example is it the JBBC or what”

2. P28: “Projects completed beyond schedule, Time and cost overruns, Implementation of projects with un-approved designs, Validity of appointment letters, Variation orders, Poor risk identification”

3. P3: “The issue of planning of projects it is a serious challenge, the planning process impacts on the entire duration of the project”

Many participants also mentioned the issue of community disruptions of ongoing and new projects in the province. More often, groups emerge with names such as a business forum, construction mafia, etc., coming to project sites and demanding some portion of the contract amount to be allocated. Adherence to the demand by the contractor will lead to the closure of the site as they will come and damage site equipment and steel or destroy the materials on site till the project implementers meet their demands. This phenomenon is becoming rampant in the Northern Cape provinces and other areas in South Africa, posing a major risk to smooth project implementation and causing significant project delays. For instance, P10 list his project risk factors as follows:

1. P10: “Contractors tender higher than on private construction projects. Interference of Construction Mafia/Construction Forums can increase tender amounts and construction time, interference with appointments of Contractors, Community interference with construction.”

2. P6: “Capital availability, Price inflation of materials, Scarcity of materials, Business forum interruption, Pandemic risk and Community interruption.”

Some participants also mentioned unforeseen events such as site conditions, environmental conditions, and site challenges as contributory risk factors for their projects. More often, project consultants fail to do feasibility studies by examining the site conditions to check the suitability of the land for the intended project. Thus, issues with soil incapacity to sustain the proposed project led to delays. Likewise, the government’s inability to properly acquire the land earmarked for the project from the traditional leaders led to site ownership issues when the project was about to commence. These issues were also identified by Mwamvani et al. [46], where road infrastructure projects in Malawi needed to be completed due to project site issues.

5.2 Sources of risk factors in public infrastructure projects

Based on the responses from the participants, the sources of project risk factors in Northern Cape province were categorised into 8 main project risk factors, as indicated in Table 3. These risk factors are categorised into eight (8) main factors: project consultants-related, contractor-related, project departments-related, political-related, community-related, materials-related, unforeseen events-related and corruption-related. The risk analysis indicates that the origins of risk factors affecting the project execution of the case study province are multi-faceted. The 8 factors were further analysed, and 48 risk factors were identified. The 48 risk factors were then grouped into internally and externally generated risk factors, as indicated in Figure 3. This further analysis was done by looking at the main risk factors and the respondents’ statements concerning the main risk factors. This was done to further break down the main risk factors into details to assist policy implementers in quickly identifying risk factors contributing to the 8 main risk factors. Based on this, the researcher identified these 48 factors contributing to the main 8 risk factors identified as the main themes shown in Table 3. The risk factors were categorised into internal and external to enable project implementers to identify risk factors under and outside their control. This will assist them in implementing strategies that will best suit each risk category to help solve the problems and improve project performance. Knowing specific issues affecting you will assist in instituting specific measures suitable to address them rather than developing general strategies not peculiar to the problem. Thus, knowing the internal issues will help create internally generated steps that are workable to manage. The external issues can also be tackled using an external approach as they involve external stakeholders. Therefore, project implementers, funders, provincial government agencies, and departments must examine these risk sources and institute measures to effectively address these risk factors to deliver and achieve the project’s desired outcomes.

Figure 3.

Internal and external sources of project risk factors.

5.2.1 Internally generated risk factors

This project’s risk factors are attributable to the actions and inactions of the project initiation department. More often, projects are initiated without proper planning regarding finances earmarked for the project and coordination with other departments who are also beneficiaries of the project under construction. This often leads to cashflow challenges and delaying payments to contractors. Again, the lack of coordination among the concerned departments led to unnecessary variations to the project scope and ballooning the project cost, making it difficult to get additional funding for the changes made, resulting in a delay in project completion. Likewise, unexpected budget cut for projects was also a significant issue within the department. As a result of budgetary constraints, project funds are reduced without any notice, leading to payment problems for work done and project delays. Akanni et al. [47] mentioned clusters of project risk factors that could cause cost overruns and project delays, including financial and political. They, therefore, tasked project managers to be aware of these clusters of risk factors for effective project management and prevention of cost and time overruns.

Again, some risk factors were attributable to internal project managers of the departments in charge of the project and appointed consultants. May project managers need to gain more knowledge about project contracts, and thus, they cannot effectively enforce the contract’s terms and conditions during project execution, resulting in poor project management. This phenomenon usually leads to poor contractor practices that affect work quality without punitive action against contractors. Likewise, project managers usually start the project with unfinished designs, perhaps due to pressure from their superiors, leading to scope changes and additional costs. It was identified that a lack of risk management culture within a projects department is also a threat. There are no risk management guidelines that project managers must follow to ascertain possible risk events that could affect the project adversely. Thus, challenges that could have been easily identified through effective risk management exercises emanate during project execution and delay the project duration. In the view of Adeleke [48], there is a substantial correlation between following laid down rules and regulations and construction risk management. Therefore, how project managers follow guidelines concerning effective project management has implications for the project outcomes.

Corruption-related project risk factors were also categorised under internal risk factors. It was identified that department procurement managers engage in corrupt activities by appointing unqualified contractors and inflating contract prices. These actions led to poor workmanship among contractors appointed to execute projects, causing the department further expenditure. Political interference in the contract award also contributes to risk for the case study province. The interference from political elites in the contractor, consultants, and labour engagement often results in the appointment of cronies who need more technical skills and knowledge to execute the project, causing project failures in most cases. Mansfield et al. [49] state that political elites and government can invoke their powers to influence the project outcome; thus, political leadership actions are crucial in national development. Likewise, Thomas and Martin [50] suggest that projects are subject to numerous influences, including political ones; therefore, construction managers should consider the political aspect that can derail the project’s success.

5.2.2 Externally generated risk factors

These risk factors are outside the internal actions of the project departments in the Northern Cape. These risks include community actions, appointed contractors’ actions, materials used for the construction and unforeseen events during the project execution. Communities where projects are executed often disrupt implementation, citing department and project managers’ lack of consultation and involvement. This leads to project stoppages, resulting in project delays. In some instances, groups from the province would come to the project site demanding a portion of the contract amount to be allocated to them before the project could continue. This leads to disruptions and further delays in the project implementation. The issue of groups within a community has been identified in Nigeria. A study by Engobo [51] identified that militants often kidnap foreign construction workers, demanding a ransom before releasing them. Again, unemployed community youth demand illegal fees, usually known as “settlement”, from contractors. All these practices by project community groups delay project execution by weeks and months as construction activities must be halted until the issues are resolved.

Again, it was identified that workers from the community usually demand other incentives from the government and contractors that are not part of the contract. Failure to adhere to their demands results in strike action, delaying the project. Another external factor identified is the construction materials issues. In some instances, materials take much work to come by within the communities where the project is taking place, forcing the contractor to import materials from the capital city and other provinces. This situation also usually delays the construction process. Again, materials suppliers often need to deliver the ordered materials on time, causing financial challenges to the contractor. According to Almeida et al. [52], purchase obligations are part of contracts with suppliers and are used in construction procurements. Thus, the procurement of materials needed for the project must be a priority of the procurement agent to prevent delivery delays.

Contractor-related risk factors were very profound from the narratives of the participants. These risk factors emanated from the contractors’ actions. Contractors were found to submit inaccurate tender prices for projects often and needed help to execute the project successfully upon appointment. As a result of low tender prices, contractors engaged unskilled workers to maximise their profit, leading to poor work quality. The inability of contractors to secure sufficient funding for the project leads to the liquidation of these firms when payment delays for work done. This was attributed to the malpractices in the procurements process where the financial capacities of contractors are overlooked, thereby appointment unsuitable contractors for project execution.

Likewise, because of poor tender pricing, contractors were found to be wanting in compliance with occupational health and safety regulations at the project site. This issue arises because of their inability to procure the necessary safety gadgets for their workers due to the lack of effective pricing of tender documents. Odeh and Battaineh [53] suggest that it is an arduous task for project managers and contractors to predict the financial viability of a project within an unstable economic environment. Thus, Oladapo and Olotuah [54] advise that an accurate estimate for local and international projects is necessary for successful project delivery. Unforeseen events were also attributed to external factors. Projects are often halted due to land acquisition challenges between the government and the traditional leaders, leading to delays. Likewise, unforeseen site events such as soil conditions and environmental impact assessment issues delay project implementation and, at times, increase the project budget. The issue of environmental challenges being a threat to construction was adduced by Hughes (1989), who advised project managers to be conscious of tackling environmental challenges before the project execution.

6. Conclusion and recommendation

Infrastructure development is a critical area for any country’s development. Thus, governments allocate significant portions of generated revenue to infrastructure development, of which the South African government is not an exception. Since government sources of income are woefully inadequate, measures must be put in place to use the resources judiciously. However, government resources are often used with less care leading to the wastage of meagre resources, especially in public project execution. The study aimed to identify the risk factors affecting the Northern Cape Province’s public infrastructure projects. Through the analysis of the pragmatic information gathered from the participant’s responses, issues such as poor contractor performance; poor contract management; political interference; community disruptions; material availability; and lastly, the lack of technical skills, corruption and unforeseen events were identified as prominent project risk factors. Further data analysis indicated that participants stated forty-eight (48) risk factors originating from project consultants, contractors, project departments, politics, community, materials, unforeseen circumstances, and corruption. This will give insight to project implementers to be aware of the project risk sources and institute measures to tackle these sources. The study recommends reviewing the plan implementation process to make project risk management practices mandatory before the project is commenced to identify possible risk factors that may disrupt the project objectives. Risk management guidelines must be developed for public infrastructure construction projects in all government departments. The government must ensure corrupt practices are eliminated in the procurement processes by enforcing the procurement regulations strictly to avoid unwarranted interference, which usually leads to the appointment of unqualified project executors, leading to project failures. The limitation of the study is that data were collected from a single province in South Africa; however, the findings may be similar in order of provinces. Future studies should investigate these risk factors’ effects on the province’s project performance.

Conflicts of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Funding

The researchers received no external funding.

Institutional review board statement

Not applicable.

Informed consent statement

The University of the Free State’s ethics committee provided the approval letter to collect the data, including the participant’s consent statement.

Data availability statement

The data for this study has been included in the article. However, the raw data will be made available upon request.